Abstract
ABSTRACT This article analyzes the COVID-19 responses of four regions: Mainland China (zero COVID), the United Kingdom (herd immunity/live with COVID), Hong Kong SAR (zero COVID without prerequisites) and Singapore (balancing policies). It compares the effectiveness of zero COVID, a physical approach, and live with COVID, a chemical/pharmaceutical approach, in the context of evolving variants, public health and socio-economic factors. Zero COVID saved lives during early, more lethal variants but caused economic disruptions when variants became less deadly. Conversely, live with COVID supported socio-economic recovery but led to significant human losses if adopted prematurely. The article challenges oversimplified views, rejecting the idea of a universally superior pandemic policy and emphasizing the importance of context-specific strategies tailored to political systems and situational demands.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call